Expertise, Neutrality, and Trust

“Our neutrality is hard won – how do we wield it in public?”

This question was posed by Professor Marie Griffith, John C. Danforth Distinguished Professor in the Humanities at Washington University in St. Louis, at a recent symposium hosted by the IU Indianapolis Center for the Study of Religion & American Culture.

It used to be that expertise confers authority. Expertise comes with exhaustive knowledge resulting from years of study. Researchers spend time studying, analyzing, and investigating – such study can lead to recommendations on best practices. In an ideal reality, the link between the theory and the type of practice adopted is clear to the researcher, to the practitioner, and the people benefitting from such study.

In an ideal state of the world, practices evolve as circumstances change. To the researcher who studied and continues to research the topic, there might seem an obvious need for change. To the practitioner, the matter could be different. As practice becomes established, it tends to become comfortable, making change feel difficult or even unnecessary. The gap between what theory prescribes and what practice reflects widens.

Members of the academy (faculty) might believe there is a need for change, the public may not, and vice versa. The academy might believe change is the best way to move forward, the public may think otherwise, or vice versa. As faculty researchers, we believe our recommendations are the result of extensive study, impartial analysis, not subjective judgements, or personal beliefs. It is difficult for us to understand the questioning of authority emanating from expertise. After all, our authority derives from expertise, and expertise must be unequivocally respected.

We are in a moment when expertise is being questioned - the public seems to have lost trust in experts and in individuals who claim ‘expertise.’

Professor Griffith’s question asks us to consider what we are doing today that erodes trust in public higher education. Our expertise is assumed to allow us to maintain neutrality arising from objectivity. Are we as neutral as we would like to believe? What are we doing today that breaks the bond of trust that we had won through our hard-earned neutrality? How do we balance neutrality with our disciplinary expertise?

Our recently adopted Chicago Principles requires neutrality at the institutional level. At the same time, can institutional neutrality be achieved if the individuals at the institution are not committed to such neutrality? How do we balance such neutrality with our disciplinary expertise?

As always, I look forward to hearing from you.

Go Jags!

Latha Ramchand
Chancellor